G.R. No. 155320 - RENATO F. HERRERA, vs. PLARIDEL ELMER J. BOHOL.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Office finds respondent RENATO F. HERRERA guilty of Simple Misconduct and is hereby meted the penalty of Suspension for One (1) Month Without Pay to take effect immediately upon receipt of this Decision by the respondent, the same being final and executory in accordance with Sections 7 and 10 of Administrative Order No. 07, in relation to Section 25 (sic) of Republic Act No. 6770. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals contending that the decision of the Ombudsman was premature, and contesting some of its factual findings. The Court of Appeals denied the appeal. [4] It ruled that the questioned decision of the Ombudsman is unappealable citing Lapid v. Court of Appeals . [5] It also debunked petitioners defense of prematurity and his claim that he did not fail to take measures to correct respondents recall. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied in the Resolution dated September 19, 2002. [6] In this petition for review, petitioner contends: First , that the penalty imposed upon him by the Ombudsman, that is, suspension for one (1) month without pay, is appealable because it is not among those enumerated as final and unappealable under Sec. 27 of Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989, viz: x x x Any order, directive or decision imposing the penalty of public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one months salary shall be final and unappealable. x x x Petitioner insists that suspension for one (1) month without pay imposed upon him by the Ombudsman, and suspension of not more than one months salary stated in the above law are different. To support his argument, petitioner cites the following excerpt from Lapid v. Court of Appeals [7] It is clear from the above provisions that the punishment imposed upon petitioner, i.e. , suspension without pay for one month, is not among those listed as final and unappealable x x x x (underscoring ours) Second , petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the finding of the Ombudsman that respondent was not informed beforehand of the recall of his item, and that petitioner did not take any corrective measure to address respondents complaint. Petitioner insists that he was assured by BARIE Director Chao that she had informed respondent of the impending recall of his item as proven by Director Chaos letter to him dated March 12, 1997. [8] In addition, he claims he immediately directed Director Chao to act on the problem through the BARIE Local Selection Board after respondent and his lawyer wrote to him protesting the recall. Third , petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in finding him guilty of misconduct despite lack of proof that he acted deliberately and with evil intent. [9] We deny the appeal. In enumerating the penalties which are final and unappealable, Sec. 27 of R.A. No. 6770 states: [a]ny order, directive or decision imposing the penalty of public censure, reprim